Remember that that these engines had no problem whatsoever to pass the emissions tests with the original software in greenwash mode on the dyno. Therefore, exclusively from an emissions test standpoint, the spaghetti strainer in front of the airflow sensor is not necessary. However, the new software will not simply run in the old greenwash mode all the time. It must make a delicate compromise between emissions and fuel consumption and power. There is a fine line between optimum power, consumption, and emissions limits. More precise measurement of airflow allows more precise engine control, and allows the software to run closer to optimum power and consumption with reduced danger of crossing over the line into exceeding emissions limits. Although the airflow smoothie probably does help reduce the undesirable side effects of reduced emissions, the advantage is probably no more than one or two mpg or horsepower. And again, it certainly was and is not absolutely necessary to meet emissions standards. This fix is the final proof that VW deceived, not for technical reasons, but to gain an unfair illegal advantage over competitors.

The cost of using the idle capacity of BEVs and the resulting more frequent battery replacements is more than balanced by the savings elsewhere in the grid and microgrid. Plus the decreased voulnerability of a more decentralized energy storage. In a civilian version, the reimbursement from the utility company for resupplying the grid would need to be higher than the increased cost of battery replacement. Convenience problems with vehicle battery state of charge can be mostly solved with intelligent individual programming of time and charge limits.

Yes, there are clearly much more efficient alternatives, but the question is how much they cost. Even 100% efficiency is worthless if it costs you more than for what you can buy or sell the energy. The point I am trying to make is that you should not automatically rule out hydrogen storage, or any other alternative, based solely on its efficiency. Depending on the individual circumstances, even the most inefficient alternative may be the most cost effective. Connecting this to the original topic, improvements in natural gas storage in vehicles, additional hydrogen content in natural gas might also improve vehicle performance and emissions, and help reduce dependence on liquid fossil fuels.

For example, you have a windmill that can produce 4 kW more than the electrical grid can use for one hour = 4kWh excess energy production. Alternative 1: throttle the power production to meet current demand and lose the excess energy production. Alternative 2: use 2 kWh to produce 1 kWh energy equivalent of of hydrogen, and the other 2 kWh to pump the hydrogen through the pipeline. At the other end, sooner or later 1 kWh energy equivalent of hydrogen comes out of the pipeline. Alternative 3: compress or liquefy landfill gas, pump water up to reservoir, pump air into cavern, electrochemical storage, thermal storage, etc. require either proximity to certain places or more equipment. If there is a gas pipeline handy, then hydrogen production would be a very simple alternative. Sure, it is far from ideal, but under certain circumstances, it may be better than nothing.

Engineer-Poet wrote: "If the added volume costs more in pumping energy than you get out at the other end, what's the point? HVDC has lower losses than NG pipelines." The point is that gas pipelines already have a currently existing inherent short term energy storage capacity, whereas HVDC itself has for practical purposes none. Storing even a small fraction of excess energy production peaks is better than none. ---------------- Getting back to the original topic, the reduced cost of the improved CNG tank should make the initial cost of a CNG vehicle more competitive. A larger portion of CNG capable vehicles would increase flexibility of the energy demand, and reduce sensitivity and vulnerability to oil supply.

Downspeeding is the unsung hero of fuel economy improvements. Downsizing is getting the most attention, while downspeeding is producing much of the improvements.

I agree with Arnold that hydraulic hybrids are sensible when the vehicle already uses a major hydraulic system. To that I would like to add that many trucks have a lot of empty space beneath the cargo area, so that the relatively inexpensive but bulky hydraulic pressure tanks are not as much of a problem as with passenger cars. I would also like to point out that many all electric forklifts use hydraulic actuator systems because they are often more economical when many powerful actuators are needed. Therefore, in many applications such as refuse trucks, delivery trucks and forklifts, hydraulic hybrid may be more advantageous in specific cases.

There is no scientific physical reason for a difference in expansion ratio between gasoline and diesel engines. Until now, diesels have generally had higher expansion ratios primarily for practical, technical, and economic reasons. The newest gasoline engines have expansion ratios of up to 14:1, and some newer diesel engines have an expansion ratio of 16:1. That is hardly a "major difference in expansion ratio". And if the trend continues, the gap may close, and there is no physics reason why it can not. The same goes for pumping losses. In several Hybrid cars with gasoline engines, the engine runs nearly unthrottled most of the duty cycle. Diesels do not have "much lower pumping losses" than an unthrottled gasoline engine. There is no physics reason why a gasoline engine could not run 100% of its duty cycle completely unthrottled.

Fuel economy and emissions figures are not very informative unless the test cycle is indicated. Since the linked press release is from the European site, I would infer that the figures are based on the NEDC. The figures for the US EPA test cycle would certainly be significantly less optimistic. I would welcome a test cycle indication in all fuel economy and emissions specifications here at GCC and all other internationally frequented publications. Nevertheless, even for NEDC, these are good results, especially for a gasoline engine. I congratulate Nissan on their "diesel killer". ;-) There is no scientific physical reason for a theoretical difference in efficiency between gasoline and diesel engines. Until now, diesels have generally been more efficient primarily for practical, technical, and economic reasons. Even as so called "diesotto" and HCCI are still being developed in the laboratory, diesel and gasoline engines are already evolving convergently in production cars. In emissions, efficiency, and technical specifications, they have been gradually becoming more similar in new cars during the past decade. Eventually the diesel vs gasoline argument will become moot. Until then, I look forward to continued improvement and technology transfer between the two.

Nordic wrote: "Wow-something similar will have to be considered in the US soon. ..." Hi Nordic, you might be interested to learn that the US already has something similar. It is called the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standard. It requires new vehicles up to 8500 lbs (3855 kg, 10% heavier than the EU definition) to have a fleetwide average of 298 g/mile (185 g/km, 6% more than the first 100% EU standard) by 2016 (one year before the 100% EU standard). A law from 2007 also requires CAFE standards to lead up to 35 mpg (250 g/mile (155 g/km)) by 2020 for the combined new passenger car and light truck fleetwide average. These numbers are of course not directly comparable, because of different testing methods, but the similarity is evident. More details at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/CAFE+-+Fuel+Economy/Model+Years+2012-2016:+Final+Rule

Too bad the VW Lupo 3L and Audi A2 3L were discontinued after several years of low sales. Around the same time, the first generation Prius was also on the market and didn't sell very well either. But instead of discontinuing it, Toyota improved it, and soon sold enough to run an assembly line at full capacity. If Chrysler actually does bring a hydraulic hybrid to market, will they abandon it if it is not immediately successful?

First of all, it's not either or, but both. Ask a military commander what would be better: Aircraft or naval vessels, and he would say "both!" Ask him which strategy should be prepared for, and he would say "both, plan A and plan B!" Efficiency and Alternative energy. Secondly, the current worldwide trend towards alternative fuels will lead to local differences in type of available fuels. If the military is not prepared to utilise these, troops may one day find themselves with supply lines cut, in a position similar to the ancient mariner: Fuel, fuel, everywhere, nor any drop to burn. Thirdly, only a small part of total military energy consumption is actually used during combat and other times when military advantage is most important. The majority of military consumption is in peaceful and non militarily critical situations. Fourthly, alternative energy is currently a national priority in the US, and the military is not an exception. The military is also bound to follow national policy. Although the study's findings are valid within the very narrow scope of the study, military advantage of alternative fuels, its recommendations inappropriately draw conclusions outside the narrow focus of the study without regard to the additional externalities.

Just remember that the bottom line is not in units of kilowatt hours, kilograms, liters, or percent efficiency, but in units of dollars and euros. You can make a car that is 95% efficient, but it will be worthless, if on the bottom line it is too expensive. You can make a car that is 5% efficient, but it will be a success, if on the bottom line it is cost effective.

This patent application is BALONEY. Alcohol blended fuels are already common practice, and their use in a slightly modified ICE is not patent worthy. If that patent is granted, I will file a patent application for blended BALONEY covering blends of between 5% and 95% fat, to expand the operating envelope of diners operating in advanced consumption modes. I will call it Mobile ton.

The Prius PHEV has a heat pump.

"Peachy! except for the small problem that CCS on the scale required may be physically impossible. We still need liquid fuels for a long time to come, but making them from coal is an unsustainable solution. Posted by: richard schumacher" It's not a question of "either or". No one is proposing to make all liquid fuels from coal. There is no single solution. We need a combination of different sources and improved efficiency to meet demand most economically and safely. Yes it's not sustainable, but it is more sustainable. It is not realistic to jump straight to 100% sustainability. We will have to make several steps along they way to the ultimate goal of full sustainability. That said, I must admit that I also don't like coal. I'd rather we left as much as possible in the ground. But realistically that's just not going to happen, so at least we should try to make the most of what we do dig up.

There's a word for not duplicating efforts: Monopoly. Some people here should spend a couple weeks studying the thousands of cooperative projects organized by the DOE, DOT, EPA, etc. Study also the thousands of industry and science associations, newsletters, conferences, seminars, journals, etc. Study also the thousands of joint ventures, licensing agreements, mergers, etc. Then come back here and tell me with a straight face that there is no organization, cooperation or sharing in the transportation and energy sectors. When two different people do likewise, it isn't the very same thing. That's an old German saying that doesn't work very well in English. Different people working independently on the same problem often have different solutions, or one might succeed while the other fails. Competing companies often DO share and cooperate, because often it benefits BOTH.

Ha ha, if I were you, I would be more worried about the thousands of tanker-trucks carrying TONS of highly flammable liquids and gasses that are on the road right NOW.

The stock engine has a compression ratio of 12.5:1. Isn't that about right for natural gas?

The technologies that we read about on this site are slowly reducing the cost of alternative energy and reducing the use and negative effects fossil fuels. These technologies are largely developed by people who want to profit from them. Those technologies which are not economical enough will fail, because no one can afford to implement them without risking bankruptcy. This applies to individuals, companies, governments, and entire countries. The benefits of reducing fossil fuel use must outweigh the costs, otherwise it is doomed to failure. When individuals, companies, governments, and entire countries weigh the costs and benefits, they do not calculate only in terms of pure monetary currency. Quality of life, quality of Environment, and other things are also considered as profits and losses. Economy and environment are inseparably connected. Economic policy must include sound environmental policy, and environmental policy must include sound economic policy. Otherwise, failure. Technologies developed and used in the United States are adopted by developing countries, if they are affordable. It does matter what the US does. If the US implements sound economical environmental technology and policy, then developing countries can afford to adopt it, thereby moderating their environmental impact. If the US implements uneconomical environmental technologies and policies, then it benefits neither.

Hi HarveyD, Yes, I think so. However, it would require a considerable investment in the development of a suitable diesel engine to get 70 mpg and still meet the future emissions standards. The difference in efficiency between the specially tuned for hybrid Atkinson gasoline engine and current diesels is not that great. In order to get 70 mpg, the diesel engine would have to be specially tuned to take advantage of the potential of the hybrid drive system. A hybrid drive system has the potential to greatly reduce the raw emissions of diesel engines by avoiding the problematic rpm and load conditions and transitions. But to meet ever stricter requirements, costly emissions reduction systems will still be necessary. In my estimation, a hybrid diesel Prius would be more costly than the hybrid gasoline Prius, thus making it attractive mainly for high mileage (distance) drivers.

trying to figure out how not to have a user pic displayed

Hi Peter, There are several good reasons why the Prius is more popular than other cars with similar mileage in Japan. Japanese like automatic transmissions. The Prius has one of the smoothest automatic transmissions in the world, comparable to many luxury cars. Japanese prefer gasoline engines. Although the most modern diesel cars are nearly as quiet and clean as gasoline cars, the Prius is still quieter during idle and cruise. Many Japanese are technology enthusiasts, and are eager to try out the latest. The Prius has a fairly high level of technical features for its class. Japan has stringent emissions laws and generous subsidies for low emissions vehicles. The Prius has lower emissions than most other similar cars.

Typical. First criticize then copy.